Intro to Updated PFAS CAP documents April 2019 Per- and Poly-Fluorinated Alkyl Substances Chemical Action Plan (PFAS CAP) – 2019 Updates New Analytical Methods Chapter In 2017, the Washington State departments of Ecology and Health shared draft PFAS CAP chapters with external parties for review and comment. Comments received are available online. This document a new ‘chapter.’ Ecology and Health are sharing chapters with interested parties prior to the May 15, 2019 PFAS CAP webinar (previously planned for March). Chapter updates will be discussed during the May webinar. We expect to publish the entire Draft PFAS CAP around July 2019 followed by a 60-day comment period. On May 15, 2019, Ecology and Health will host a PFAS CAP webinar to: Briefly review activities underway: firefighting foam, food packaging, drinking water. Review updated/new chapters – comments will be accepted on the updated chapters. Responses will be provided after the 2019 public comment period (summer 2019). Discuss preliminary recommendations – requesting comments and suggestions from interested parties – due June 3, 2019. Submit comments online. Quick summary of PFAS CAP efforts: PFAS CAP Advisory Committee and interested parties met in 2016, 2017 and 2018. September 2017 Draft PFAS CAP chapters posted: Intro/Scope Biosolids Chemistry Ecological Toxicology Environment Health Regulations Uses/Sources March of 2018, Ecology and Health published the Interim PFAS CAP. The 2019 updated PFAS CAP “chapters” to be posted (in the order we expect to post on the PFAS CAP website): Biosolids Ecological Toxicology Environment Regulations Uses/Sources Health Fate and Transport (new) Analytical methods (new) Chemistry Economic analysis (new) Preliminary Recommendations (new) Questions - contact Kara Steward at [email protected]. This document is posted on the PFAS CAP Website - https://www.ezview.wa.gov/?alias=1962&pageid=37105
18
Embed
Per- and Poly-Fluorinated Alkyl Substances Chemical Action ......Briefly review activities underway: firefighting foam, food packaging, drinking water. Review updated/new chapters
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Intro to Updated PFAS CAP documents April 2019
Per- and Poly-Fluorinated Alkyl Substances Chemical Action Plan
(PFAS CAP) – 2019 Updates
New Analytical Methods Chapter
In 2017, the Washington State departments of Ecology and Health shared draft PFAS CAP chapters with external parties for review and comment. Comments received are available online. This document a new ‘chapter.’ Ecology and Health are sharing chapters with interested parties prior to the May 15, 2019 PFAS CAP webinar (previously planned for March). Chapter updates will be discussed during the May webinar. We expect to publish the entire Draft PFAS CAP around July 2019 followed by a 60-day comment period. On May 15, 2019, Ecology and Health will host a PFAS CAP webinar to:
Review updated/new chapters – comments will be accepted on the updated chapters. Responses will be provided after the 2019 public comment period (summer 2019).
Discuss preliminary recommendations – requesting comments and suggestions from interested parties – due June 3, 2019.
Submit comments online. Quick summary of PFAS CAP efforts:
PFAS CAP Advisory Committee and interested parties met in 2016, 2017 and 2018.
New analytes in the updated method include the GenX chemical, hexafluoropropylene oxide
dimer acid (Kato et al. 2008; Strynar et al. 2015). However, non–targeted liquid chromatography
with high-resolution mass spectrometer (LC-HRMS) can be applied to identify additional
suspected or uncharacterized PFAS if analytical standards are available for PFAS identification
and quantification (McDonough et al. 2018).
Method 537 is specified for PFAS in drinking water by solid phase extraction (SPE). As a result,
it is not amenable to an expanded list of PFAS compounds or to analysis of other sample
matrices without modification of the method. For example, it would not work well for the
determination of PFAS in consumer products or non-water matrices. Proprietary non-standard
methods based on modifications of method 537 are used by various commercial laboratories for
the determination of PFAS in non-drinking water samples.
As part of the laboratory selection process for non-drinking water analysis (e.g. consumer
product).The laboratory analytical procedure should be evaluated to ensure all parameters meet
acceptance criteria for all analytical QC elements. The QC elements should be evaluated to
ensure that they are set at levels that meet the project’s measurement quality objectives (MQOs).
The laboratory should also provide an initial demonstration of capability (IDC).
The QC criteria should not be less stringent than the criteria found in the U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD) Quality Systems Manual (QSM), Version 5.1, Appendix B, Table B-15 (USDOD
2017a) or later version
Currently, DoD’s QSM for Environmental Laboratories, Version 5.1.1, Table B-15 (DoD 2017)
provides the most current and comprehensive set of quality standards for PFAS analysis. These
performance-based standards outline specific quality processes for sample preparation,
instrument calibration and analysis when working with PFAS. The DoD QSM, Version 5.1,
Table B-15, criteria currently require isotope dilution quantitation of PFAS. The isotope dilution
method accounts for interferences caused by complex sample matrices and bias introduced by
sample preparation and instrumental issues.
Chemical Action Plan for Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances
Appendix #: Analytical methods
Update – do not cite or quote 6 April 2019
Quantitation of linear and branch isomers of PFAS
Many PFAS may be present as mixtures of linear and branched isomers (chemicals with the
same chemical formula, but different molecular structures) depending on the manufacturing
process that was used. These structural differences are important because they may affect how
the compounds behave in the environment and may provide an indicator of their source.
Accurate quantification of PFAS that are mixtures of linear isomers and branched isomers in
environmental matrices can be difficult (Riddell et al. 2009).
However, they may be useful in understanding sources of PFAS and the age of the source, since
the production of isomers varies by manufacturing processes. The different molecular structure
of the isomers may also have implications for partitioning, fate and transport of PFAS in the
environment.
With EPA method 537, laboratories had difficulty in quantifying both linear and branch isomers
of PFOA. To account for linear and branched isomers of PFOA, EPA recommends that
integration and quantitation of drinking water samples include peaks that represent both linear
and branched isomers. EPA notes that the correct application of the method is to calibrate using a
certified quantitative standard that includes both the linear and branched isomers of each analyte,
if available. As of the release of EPA technical advisory (EPA 815-B-16-021, 2016), there is no
certified quantitative mixed standard for PFOA, the available PFOA standards can be used to
account for mixed isomers.
Since there is currently no certified quantitative PFOA standard that contains both linear and
branched isomers that can be used to quantitate in the traditional manner, EPA recommends that
until such standard is available, labs use the following approach:
Calibrate instrumentation using a certified quantitative standard containing only the
linear isomer.
Identify the branched isomers by analyzing a “qualitative/semi-quantitative” PFOA
mixed standard that includes both linear and branched isomers (Wellington
Laboratories, cat#: T-PFOA or equivalent) and compare retention times and tandem
mass spectrometry transitions.
Quantitate PFOA by integrating the total response (i.e., accounting for peaks that are
identified as linear and branched isomers) and relying on the initial calibration with the
linear-isomer quantitative standard.
ISO Method 25101: SPE – water
ISO 25101:2009 specifies a method for the determination of the linear isomers of PFOS and
PFOA in unfiltered samples of drinking water, ground water and surface water (fresh water and
sea water) using high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry
(HPLC-MS/MS) (ISO 2009, reviewed 2014). Analytes are extracted from water sample by solid
phase extraction (SPE) followed by solvent elution and determined by liquid chromatography
tandem mass spectrometric detection. Other isomers may be reported separately as non-linear
isomers and qualified as such. The method is applicable to a concentration range of 2.0 ng/l to
10,000 ng/l for PFOS and 10 ng/l to 10,000 ng/l for PFOA. Depending on the matrix, the method
Chemical Action Plan for Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances
Appendix #: Analytical methods
Update – do not cite or quote 7 April 2019
may also be applicable to higher concentrations ranging from 100 ng/l to 200,000 ng/l after
suitable dilution of the sample or reduction in sample size.
ASTM D7979: Direct injection – surface/wastewater
ASTM D7979 have been successfully used in the determination of selected PFAS in water
matrices (e.g. sludge and wastewater influent and effluent) using liquid chromatography (LC)
and detection with tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) (ASTM 2017). This method adheres to a
technique known as selected reaction monitoring (SRM) or sometimes referred to as multiple
reaction monitoring (MRM). This is not a drinking water method; performance of this test
method has not been evaluated on drinking water matrices. ASTM D7979 is a performance
based method, and alternative operating conditions can be used to perform this method provided
data quality objectives are attained. It is a direct injection method that does not require sample
preparation.
ASTM D7979 (2017) currently covers the analysis of 21 PFAS compounds, with 10 additional
compounds listed for consideration in the appendix of the method. Eight additional PFAS
compounds including three emerging PFAS compound of interest (11Cl-PF3OUdS, 9Cl-
PF3ONS and ADONA) have been determined by the method to a total of 39 PFAS analytes
(Waters, 2018).
ASTM D7968: solids (soil)
This method was developed by USEPA Region 5 Chicago Regional Laboratory, and has been
successfully used for the determination of selected PFAS in a soil matrix (ASTM, 2017a). It is
similar in scope to ASTM D7979-17 and uses solvent extraction, filtration, followed by liquid
chromatography (LC) and detection with tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) to qualitatively
and quantitatively determined PFAS in soil. Analytes detected with this method include: eleven
perfluoroalkyl carboxylic acids, three perfluoroalkyl sulfonates, decafluoro-4- (pentafluoroethyl)
cyclohexanesulfonate, and six fluorotelomers. Table X1.1 of the method lists ten additional
PFAS analytes that may be determined by this standard.
This is also a performance-based method and alternative operating conditions can be used to
perform this method provided that all data quality objectives defined in the method are attained.
It is recommended that quality control and quality assurance requirements, if not well defined in
the standard methods, must not be less stringent than the PFAS requirement found in DoD QSM
(2017), Version 5.1 or later, Appendix B, and Table B-15, for media types.
PFAS Analysis Standard methods summary:
USEPA Method 537 Version 1
o Multi-laboratory validated standard method
o Prescriptive, performed as specifically written.
o Is not amenable to expanded list of PFAS compounds or other sample matrices.
o Targeted method for selected PFAS analysis in drinking water.
ISO Method 25101 (ISO 2009): SPE – water
o Valid standard method
Chemical Action Plan for Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances
Appendix #: Analytical methods
Update – do not cite or quote 8 April 2019
o Targeted method for the determination of the linear isomers of PFOS and PFOA
in unfiltered samples of drinking water, ground water and surface water (fresh
water and sea water)
o Involves extensive sample preparation.
ASTM D7979 (ASTM 2017): Direct injection – surface/wastewater o Allows for quick sample turnaround time due to minimal sample preparation.
o Performance based, and more PFAS analytes determined including emerging
analytes of interest with this method than any other standard method.
o Valid method for the determination of selected PFAS in non-drinking water
samples.
o New “replacement PFAS” can be included in the method.
o Could be modified for consumer product analysis following appropriate
extraction procedure.
ASTM D7968 (ASTM 2017a): solids o Allows for quick sample turnaround time due to minimal sample preparation. o Valid method for the determination of selected PFAS in soil samples.
o New “replacement PFAS” can be included in the method.
o Performance based method
USEPA method 537 version 1.1 (USEPA 2008), a multi-laboratory validated method, uses SPE
extraction of the sample. Surrogate and internal standards are used to monitor for analyte loss
due to sample preparation, instrument drifts, or matrix effects.
ISO 25101:2009 method is a published method for determination of linear isomers of PFOA and
PFOS in unfiltered drinking, surface, and groundwater samples. ISO 21675, an undertaking by
the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Japan is undergoing an
interlaboratory trial for validation of up to 32 PFAS analytes in a wide range of aqueous matrices
including drinking water, surface water, wastewater and sea water.
Both the ASTM methods (D7979 & D7968) use external standard quantitation, which does not
account for analyte loss during sample preparation, instrument drift, or matrix effects and it is
most suitable for clean matrices with little to no matrix interferences. ASTM standard methods
D7979 and D7968 are not multi-laboratory validated
Non–specific methods for PFAS analysis
Many of the available standard methods for PFAS analysis do not account for all known PFAS.
Human exposures to PFAS are generally not from individual PFAS but from a complex mixture
(Schaider et al. 2017), and analytical techniques are limited for determining which PFAS
constituents are in a given mixture. Hence, the full extent of PFAS contamination could be
underestimated when targeted analytical methods are used to quantify PFAS concentration. The
complexity of PFAS, the production of commercial mixtures, and the tendency to generate
intermediate transformation products (Guelfo et al. 2018) present a performance challenge for
current targeted methods.
Chemical Action Plan for Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances
Appendix #: Analytical methods
Update – do not cite or quote 9 April 2019
Another complex challenge is the study of PFAS in the human body. Reviews and studies
conducted by Luz et al, (2019)1 indicated that short-chain PFAS product such as
perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) are less toxic or hazardous to human health than the long chain
PFAS (e.g. PFOA). Anderson et al. (2019)1 in their review of PFHxA concluded that PFHxA and
related short-chain fluorotelomers present a low human health risk to the general population.
However, Brendel et al, (2018) in their study of short-chain PFAAs concluded that short-chain
PFAAs are as persistent as long-chain PFAAs, and highlights the concern of short-chain PFAAs
as replacement for long-chain PFAAs. There is insufficient information on the toxicity of short-
chain PFAAs to exclude sub-lethal long-term effects (Lilienthal et al, 2017). The majority of the
estimated 4,700 PFAS currently on the world market have very limited or no toxicity
information (Wang et al., 2017), indicating a critical data gap on the full extent of PFAS.
Studies have indicated that scientists are using techniques that focus on measuring the total
exposure of all PFAS instead of one or a limited set of PFAS substances. This is important to
gain a better understanding of exposures to PFAS as a class (Hartmann et al.2107; Poothong et
al. 2017).
In a published study by the Nordic Council of Minister on the analysis of PFAS and total organic
fluorine (TOF) in product (Borg et al. 2017). Comparison between analysed individual PFAS
and TOF concentration showed that individual PFAS constitute a small proportion of the TOF. It
indicates a data gap relative to the “unknown “or potentially uncharacterized PFAS by
conventional analytical techniques. Schultes, et al. (2019), also compared CIC based EOF to
target PFAS measurement in food packaging samples by liquid chromatography-tandem mass
spectrometry that revealed large amounts of unidentified organic fluorine not captured by
compound-specific analysis.
Measuring PFAS as a class (total PFAS) due to their persistent nature and toxicity is probably a
more appropriate way for assessing exposure and risk to human health and the environment.
In addressing PFAS, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Safer
Consumer Products has labeled the entire class of PFAS as a “priority chemical” and is drafting
work plans to evaluate these chemicals in products such as carpet and rug textiles and treatments
(DTSC 2018). In treating PFAS as a class, formal PFAA regulations as hazardous wastes or
hazardous substances have been promulgated in Vermont, New York, New Jersey, Colorado and
Alaska for PFAA.
Non-standard analytical techniques for measuring PFAS
McDonough et al. (2018) evaluated analytical techniques for measuring total (bulk) organo-
fluorine developed for the study and quantification of unidentified fractions of PFAS in
environmental and biological samples. These methods or techniques vary in applicability to
different sample matrices, and in their selectivity and sensitivity. These techniques include:
1 Funded by the FluoroCouncil.
Chemical Action Plan for Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances
Appendix #: Analytical methods
Update – do not cite or quote 10 April 2019
Combustion ion chromatography (CIC) methods
Combustion ion chromatography mineralizes and then measures organic fluorine from the
extractable organic fluorine (EOF) and adsorbable organic fluorine (AOF) assay. Samples are
combusted between 900 -1000 degree Celsius (C) to convert organic fluorine to hydrofluoric
acid, which is then absorbed into solution of sodium hydroxide (McDonough et al. 2018). The
total concentration of the fluoride is subsequently measured by ion chromatography (IC) after
calibration with sodium fluoride. The choice of sample preparation is important in isolating
organic fluorine from fluoride prior to CIC analysis since CIC will not differentiate between
organic and inorganic fluorine, and does not identify individual PFAS.
Extractable organic fluorine (EOF) - In EOF, the organic fluorine fraction is isolated by ion
pairing methods and total organic fluorine (TOF) is measured by CIC. The EOF assay is the
most commonly used assay found in literature for total organic fluorine measurement in different
environmental matrices, human blood (Miyake et al. 2007, Yeung et al. 2013), and in marine
mammals (Yeung et al. 2009).
Adsorbable organic fluorine (AOF) - Wagner et al. (2013) described the AOF assay, and
differs in the way the organo-fluorine is extracted from the sample matrix. In AOF, the sample is
passed through cartridges containing synthetic polystyrenedivinylbenzene-based activated
carbon (AC). Residual fluoride is removed with a sodium nitrate washing solution, and the AC
absorbent is then analyzed by CIC. AOF has only been applied to waters/wastewater (Wagner et
al. 2013, Dauchy et al. 2017).
Particle-induced gamma ray emission (PIGE)
PIGE is a non-destructive analytical technique that takes advantage of the unique gamma-ray
wavelength emission of fluorine when impacted with a proton ion beam. The technique is not
compound specific but it is able to assess total fluorine content of a variety of materials isolated
on a thin surface. Fluorine can be detected to a depth of approximately 200 um, but the precise
value varies by substrate type. (Ritter et al. 2017). The sample is secured in the instrument and
bombarded ex vacuo under a 3.4 MeV beam with an intensity of 10 nA for approximately 180 s.
Two gamma rays characteristic of the decay of the 19F nucleus (110 keV and 197 keV) are
measured and the responses integrated. PIGE has recently been quantitatively applied to the
measurement of PFAS impacted samples by creating calibration standards consisting of textiles
soaked in solution of a known organofluorine (Ritter et al. 2017).
PIGE has primarily been used for solid-phase samples such as textiles, paper and food packaging
(Lang et al. 2016, Robel et al. 2017, Schaider et al.2017). PIGE is a rapid screening technique to
measure fluoride, PFAS, and other fluorine containing compounds in the samples. PIGE does not
differentiate between inorganic fluorine and organic fluorine. It is important to understand
whether there are significant sources of both organic and inorganic fluorine in a sample. There
are techniques to remove inorganic fluorine that can make it specific for organofluorine if the
sample does not contain significant amount of fluoride or if the inorganic fluoride has been
removed from the sample.
PIGE can detect a wide range of fluorine treatment chemicals including polymeric fluorine
treatments such as polytetrafluoroethylene, side-chain fluorinated polymers and small molecule
products.
Chemical Action Plan for Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances
Appendix #: Analytical methods
Update – do not cite or quote 11 April 2019
Total oxidizable precursors (TOP) assay
Houtz and Sedlak (2012) developed the total oxidizable precursor (TOP) assay method. The TOP
assay was developed to infer and indirectly quantify the total amount of chemical “precursors” to
PFAAs in a sample by comparing the concentrations of specific PFAAs before and after
oxidation of the sample by an excess of hydroxyl radicals (Houtz and Sedlak 2012). It is the most
selective of PFAS surrogate analytical methods, in that it selects only PFAS compounds that can
be oxidized to form targeted PFAAs (McDonough et al., 2018). The same procedure of sample
preparation is followed as traditionally used for targeted LC-MS/MS analysis. The assay is
useful with compounds that oxidize to form LC-amenable hydroxyl radical resistant PFAS,
however, these oxidation products must then also be detectable by LC-MS/MS. Some oxidation
products, such as very short chain PFAS, will not be detected by standard post-assay detection
approaches such as EPA method 537.
The assay is subject to low and variable recoveries that may lead to false negatives, especially in
samples that have very low levels of PFAS (Robel et al., 2017). The limitation of the TOP assay
is that it does not easily differentiate between precursors that contain telomer or sulfonamide
functionalities, as all of these precursors are chemically oxidized primarily to perfluoroalkyl
carboxylates. The TOP assay has not been demonstrated on large molecular weight polymer
compounds or newer ether-linked PFAS like GenX; it is unknown if the oxidative process would
liberate PFAAs from these types of compounds.
The TOP assay process converts fluorotelomer-based compounds including PFAA precursors
into a mixture of PFAA products (Houtz & Sedlak 2012). The increase in PFAAs measured after
the TOP assay, relative to before, is a conservative estimate of the total concentration of PFAA
precursors present in a sample, because not all PFAS present will be subject to quantitation or
reaction, and will remain as undetected PFAS. The PFAAs generated have perfluoroalkyl chain
lengths equal to, or shorter than, the perfluoroalkyl chain lengths present in the precursors (Houtz
et al. 2013; Houtz and Sedlak 2012; Weber et al. 2017; Dauchy et al. 2017). The TOP assay has
been applied to a number of environmental matrices such as effluent wastewater, stormwater
runoff, river and ground waters as well as soil. Applications of the TOP assay have been
published by Houtz and Sedlak, 2012; Houtz et al.,2013, 2016; McGuire et al., 2014; Harding-
Marjanovic et al., 2015.
Challenges of analytical method selection and conclusion
Detailed descriptions of the non-standard analytical techniques for measuring PFAS are
referenced in TOP (Houtz and Sedlak 2012), PIGE (Ritter et al. 2017), EOF (Miyake et al. 2007)
and AOF (Wagner et al. 2013). These methods enable measurement of total precursors, total
fluorine, and total organic fluorine, respectively. Which method you choose depends on the
selectivity and inclusivity for a given application. McDonough et al. (2018) indicated that
methods that are highly inclusive, such as PIGE that does not differentiate between organic and
inorganic fluorine, are impractical for measuring PFAS related organofluorine. However, EOF
has a unique advantage over other methods as its selectivity can be adjusted depending on the
sample preparation and fractionation method, and can be used to measure PFAS related
organofluorine present in a sample. EOF and AOF may have sufficient sensitivity to measure
Chemical Action Plan for Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances
Appendix #: Analytical methods
Update – do not cite or quote 12 April 2019
total PFAS in water (Miyake et al. 2007), while the sensitivity of PIGE may be limited by
fluoride interferences.
Among these methods, the TOP assay is the most sensitive for individual PFAS (Houtz and
Sedlak 2012), as it utilizes LC-MS/MS of targeted precursors. However, it is limited in its ability
to account for emerging PFAS of concern such as GenX and ADONA that do not oxidize. It is
also prone to selectivity concerns with reverse phase liquid chromatography, meaning that
compounds that are not retained by the LC columns such as short-chain PFAS are lost.
Although, progress has been made in the analysis of PFAS, significant challenges remain from
the fact that the complete list of PFAS relevant to environmental and human health exposure
scenarios is still unknown. As more research and studies are completed in identifying novel
PFAS and precursor transformation products, effective comprehensive technique capable of
quantitative non-target analysis remains elusive (Nakayama et al, 2019).
The full extent of PFAS contamination may be underestimated unless non-targeted methods are
used for PFAS analysis. The lack of available analytical standards means that precursors,
degradation products and transformation products will not be quantified (D ’Agostino and
Mabury, 2018).
McDonough et al. (2018) recommended that total organofluorine measurements by EOF and/or
TOP assay be combined with high-resolution mass spectrometer (HRMS) as well with targeted
analytical methods (LC-MS/MS) to obtain a full characterization of PFAS composition, sources
and health risk.
HRMS using technology such as quadrupole time of flight (QTOF) generates high mass
accuracy data that can be used in identification of unknown compounds (Barzen-Hanson et al.
2017b; Strynar et al. 2015).
Although, this recommendation may be specific to water, TOF measurement has been applied to
other matrices (Schultes, et al. 2019). Guelfo et al. (2018) suggested that coupling AOF/EOF,
TOP or PIGE with LC-MS/MS could help provide a better understanding of the total PFAS load
present in a sample but will not result in identification of all individual PFAS present.
The availability of these techniques (EOF, PIGE, and HRMS except TOP assay) are mostly
limited to non-commercial research facility or laboratories, and the quantification of PFAS that
lack standards remains a challenge.
Measuring PFAS as a class (total PFAS) due to their persistent nature and toxicity is probably a
more appropriate way for assessing exposure and risk to human health and the environment. Due
to the limitation of available standard methods, non-targeted analytical techniques that can
measure the total PFAS concentration in multiple matrices is preferred. The selection of any non-
targeted method depends on the selectivity and inclusivity for a given application.
An important shortcoming of the non-targeted methods is that they are not standardized or multi-
laboratory validated. The use of these methods is limited to research and investigation. Their
result cannot be use for estimating toxicological effects, preventing the use of these methods for
regulatory purposes.
Chemical Action Plan for Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances
Appendix #: Analytical methods
Update – do not cite or quote 13 April 2019
EPA update on PFAS analytical method development and validation efforts
Currently, there are no standard EPA methods for analyzing PFAS in surface water, non-potable
groundwater, wastewater, or solids. For non-drinking water samples, some U.S. laboratories are
using modified methods based on EPA Method 537. These modified methods have no consistent
sample collection guidelines and have not been validated or systematically assessed for data
quality.
EPA labs tested an existing direct injection analytical protocol for preparing and analyzing 24
PFAS in groundwater, surface water, and wastewater. These methods will be included in the
SW-846 updates.
Draft SW-846 Method 8327 Non-drinking water aqueous samples
Direct injection (DI) LC/MS/MS for non-potable waters based on EPA Region 5/Chicago
Regional Lab Method
This method focuses on simplicity and robustness, and minimizes sample transfers and
extraction. It is similar to the draft ASTM Method D7979.
Phase 1: Six internal (EPA) lab validation trials (Completed December 2017)
Phase 2: Ten external lab validation (ongoing)
Initial demonstration of capability complete (7 labs “in” and 3 “out”)
August 2018: Shipped samples (60 unknowns: surface, ground, and waste waters)
January 2019: Draft method posted for public comment (has not been posted, may be
posted in March 2019)
EPA has also drafted a solid-phase extraction/isotope dilution (SPE-ID) method. This method is
undergoing internal EPA validation.
Draft SW-846 Method 8328 Solid phase extraction (SPE) isotopic dilution method for non-potable waters and solid matrices (soils, sediments, waste)
Draft Method 8328 will include solid matrices in addition to non-drinking water aqueous
matrices. Additionally, an analytical method for short-chain PFAS in drinking water is under
development and planned for external validation and publication for public review by early 2019.
Method 8328 is a more complex method relative to direct injection, and will likely be more
robust for complex matrices (e.g., wastewater influents, biosolids). Account for matrix effects
(e.g., sorption) through isotopically marked standard recoveries. The method will:
Meet DoD requirements.
Allow users to perform a deeper dive based on screening (e.g. 8327) results.
Same 24 PFAS analytes plus GenX chemical (HFPO-DA)
Target Quantitation Limits of 10 nanogram/L
Two internal lab validation started, and Ten external lab validation study planned
Chemical Action Plan for Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substances
Appendix #: Analytical methods
Update – do not cite or quote 14 April 2019
Spring 2019 target for draft method
ASTM D-7968 Soil extraction/direct injection
EPA‘s office land management is in collaboration with ASTM for external multi-laboratory
validation of ASTM D-7968 for 24 PFAS including all target analytes in EPA method 537.
References
ASTM D7979-17, Standard Test Method for Determination of Per- and Polyfluoroakyl
Substances in Water, Sludge, Influent, Effluent and Wastewater by Liquid Chromatography
Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box
C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, 2017, (www.astm.org).
ASTM D7968-17a, Standard Test Method for Determination of Polyfluoroakyl Compounds in
Soil by Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). ASTM International,
100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, 2017,
(www.astm.org).
Barzen-Hanson KA, Roberts SC, Choyke S, Oetjen K, McAlees A, Riddell N., et al. 2017b.
Discovery of 40 classes of per- and polyfluoroakyl substances in historical aqueous film-forming
foams (AFFFs) and AFFF-impacted groundwater. Environ Sci Techno l51 (4):2047–2057,
PMID: 28098989, 10.1021/acs.est.6b05843.
Berger U, Kaiser MA, Kärrman A, Barber JL, Van Leeuwen SPJ (2011) Recent developments in
trace analysis of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances. Anal Bio-anal Chem 400:1625–1635.
Borg D, Ivarsson J: Analysis of PFASs and TOF in Products. Nordic Council of Ministers.